Killing Terrorist’s Families

(h/t Eli Harman)

Note: it is against the geneva convention to kill a someone engaged in war on the behalf of a state. To say that we will not kill the family of a terrorist is to say that we are in fact at war with them. But the purpose of the geneva convention is to allow the states to engage in warfare using conscripts without those conscripts turning against their own in order to protect their families. This misapplication of the convention is intended to empower the states to fight war with conscripts, not create safe havens for terrorists. But that is what it does. So again this shows the necessity for strict construction in law and contract. Without this provision this law can be misapplied. In other words, the state can lie to us yet again.

“Well, it was the norm throughout all history, and the fact that we don’t retaliate against all family members is a modern invention of individualism.

“The basic principle is this: Police your own. If you do not police your own, you will pay for it. Do not ask the rest of us to police yours.

“Secondly, family members (especially in islam) have perverse incentive to encourage this behavior.

“Third, when someone is acting in a military capacity on behalf of a group then the group benefits from the action in that capacity. Ergo we must provide disincentives to benefit from encouragement of immorality.

“So, my view is of course, that we cannot use reciprocity (individualism) unless we receive reciprocity (individualism). As such we are obligated to engage in the prosecution of family members.”

– Curt Doolittle

Leave a Reply